Check this out read from the bottom up ...Audatex at it's finest

are submitting them as well..................

But you are right how long could the DOJ etc... ignore these when sent to them before they were forced to take action...I wish the DEG would format their date to date and allow us to send it in....

I am working on that........only issue and I can see this happening is they say that the IP would shut them down on responses as they have already told them they don't "owe" this service to anyone.......no kidding their words........so it is but a period of time before it goes away I am sure...anytime it is used for the better of the repairers....it goes away.....lol

2007 Make Cheverolet Model Silverado C1500 LTZ Body Style 4Dr Truck
AreaVehicle
Front Fender
PartName
LT Fender Chevrolet
PartNumber
25819542
IssueSummary
The base labor time of 1.8 for r&r is, in our opinion, not
sufficient. There are several parts attached to this fender
that must be removed in order to replace. Parts that must be
removed include fuse block, emission PCM control, w/sheild
washer tank, L battery tray, L headlamp, L hood hinge, L
hood spring, L fender liner, L rear fender bracker, L front
fender brace.




Great news Michael!

Your inquiry was submitted to CCC by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, CCC has proposed the resolution listed below which is scheduled to be added to the January 2010 DVD update. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

Proposed Resolution: MOTOR stated:

'After review of OEM service information (Replace Left Fender ) and second vehicle inspection, we have determined that the disconnect/reconnect of the junction block and ECM mounting attachment is necessary. However, the R&I of windshield washer reservoir is not a required procedure. For clarification, the following changes have been made:



1. The estimated work time applied to the Fender (left) has been adjusted to 2.6 hours from 1.8 hours.

2. The estimated work time applied to the Fender (right) has been adjusted to 2.9 hours from 2.4 hours.

3. The estimated work time applied to R&I fender assembly (left) operation has been adjusted to 2.4 hours from 1.6 hours.

4. The footnote applied to Fender (left) and R&I fender assembly (left) operation has been updated to state: “LABOR: Time includes headlamp assembly, hinge, end cap, fender liner and battery tray. Time includes D&R junction block and D&R ECM. Time is after bumper cover is removed.”

5. The estimated work time applied to the R&I fender assembly (right) operation has been adjusted to 2.7 hours from 2.2 hours.

6. The footnote applied to the Fender (right) and R&I fender assembly (right) operation has been updated to state: 'LABOR: LABOR: Time includes headlamp assembly, front extension, hinge, end cap, fender liner, air cleaner assembly, coolant reservoir, battery and battery tray. Time is after bumper cover is removed.''

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.


Still short of the 3.1 Mitchell had, but much better than 1.8 I suppose.

Thank you Mark Cobb

We have received your inquiry and appreciate your dedication and energy to help improve collision estimating data.

The DEG will research your inquiry and will work with Mitchell to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to Mitchell. If the DEG Administration requires additional information regarding this operation, you may receive a follow up contact first to clarify any open items. If you would like to track the status of this update, feel free to log on to the DEG database at www.degweb.org. If you have questions regarding this inquiry, please feel free to contact DEG Administration at admin@degweb.org , and reference your inquiry via the tracking number listed below.

Sincerely,

The Database Enhancement Gateway



Inquiry Tracking Number: 1887

Information Provider: Mitchell

Vehicle Description: 2006 Scion TC 2Dr Hatchback jtkde177460090704

Inquiry Recap:

AreaVehicle
Rear Body / Floor


PartName
Rear Body Floor Support


IssueSummary
When selecting this part for R&R the current labor allowance is, in our opinion, not sufficent to complete this operation. In addition, there is no refinish labor allowance for this part in the current database.


SuggestedAction
Please review the current labor informaiton associated with this part in the current database and increase R&R labor allowance as appropriate and also add refinish time for this part.

You know I admire what you are doing Mark, but try as I might I can see no solution from any effort, no matter how widespread and paticipatory individuals might be in "helping improve collision data". I think "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear" is not going to happen.

The data, and even using that term is a disservice since that implies it is some sort of reasonable compilation of information, and what it is supposed to represent is so complex and every changing it can never be useful as a reasonable benchmark for lazy shopowners, and certainly never a statistically valid one. Even if it could be, it is clear the 'data' providers have no incentive to compile accurate data. Just look at the response you have gotten directly yet you pay them for their service. Not to mention their move to becoming TPA's for the insurance industry.

Why is it not clear to "professional" collision repairers that the answer is easy? If enough stopped using them, how could they be 'required'?

Is trying to "help improve the accuracy of the information" just prolonging the system? And ultimately will that be the insurer's defense...gee your honor, not only do we not make them use them, they pay for it".


Roy

"Why is it not clear to "professional" collision repairers that the answer is easy? If enough stopped using them, how could they be 'required'?"


Will that take more? Less? Or the same amount that will actually take the time to file the inquiry?

LOL

I am not doing it for the reasons you state...not even close....

But I still love you.....Group hug....

Love you long time man......lol

:p

How many? How many are their in ASPI, CCRE, SCRS the Conn Autobody association and a couple of others? But that would take hardware.

But like you said it would take hardware and this industry lacks that and has proven it for many many years.....

So when they build a wall, build a ladder to go over it.....

Just this week I have fnished 2 ladders and working on a third.. :):):)

.
.

For what its worth.... I stopped using the Labor times around 2004 -- 2005.

Then I noticed so many discrepancies in the Parts pricing I dropped my subscription at the end of 2007. I reasoned that if I had to call my supplier for current prices anyway, why bother with the Book?? Just call or Fax the parts list for current pricing from my suppliers.

Don't miss the Book, don't need the Book. (Or its ever increasing CO$T)

Been doing this work for a long long time and realized that if I can't make an itemized list of what is needed and figure in my mind from past "experience" how long it should take me to repair each item/area of the damage to an automobile [ in my shop, with my tools and abilities (or lack there of) ] by now... then something must be wrong with me.

And in the end...... no matter who present's the "Best Guess Estimate" [Me, the Book, the Insurer person, the Car Owner or Grandma........ It all gets corrected by the "Final Bill"..!!!


Don't miss the Book, don't need the Book. ( Or its ever increasing CO$T )

Quoting Fred "It all gets corrected by the "Final Bill"..!!!"

Many years ago, I would calculate my cost of the repair, including overhead, clean up time and other hidden costs such as coffee breaks and nonproductive time and then add my desired profit per hour of $7.00 to create the final invoice

My customers were happy that many times it would be lower than the estimate. They began to send me work without an estimate, saving much wasted time.

Over the years with different customers, I found it necessary to return to estimates, but I always calculate the final profit per hour that tells me whether the estimate was correct or not. If a job does not pay my desired profit, I refuse to do another one like it, using the same estimate values, no matter where I got them.

Ps, I won’t say how many years ago that I settled for $7.00 p/h. Some people May think that I’m older than dirt.

The most important part of labor is the experience, training necessary to do the job, affected by the extent of the work...from simple to complex, and the work environment. The time is merely the measure of the duration.

What you contribute to the job at hand, that experience and training has to be measured and valued. But in this industry it isn't. The value of your contribution to your customer is determined by a preconceived notion that your experience, training and your environment is essentially identical to every other situation in every shop.

And this applies to each and every 'pricing' method external to the job. The use of those 'books, guides, data'......whatever you want to call them, amounts to one thing. You not only are shortchanging yourself, it has fostered a system that fails to deliver to the customer what is expected.

It has removed competition meant to weed out the poor performing from those that deliver on their promise at a competitive price. Instead of the experience, training and environment being the driving force behind price, it is time duration which has nothing to do what you contribute. Or what the customer receives.

That we even discuss those pricing methods and they are still and likely to remain, speaks directly to the extent of the brain washing we have all subjected ourselves. Frankly, I think most repairers are brain dead.

Had to leave, but I want to add this:

Insurers count on repairers being stupid. In fact, they look most derisively at those of a public face who promote the insurer agenda, and not the Mark Cobb's, who I expect, they grudgingly respect.

Thank you Mark Cobb

We have received your inquiry and appreciate your dedication and energy to help improve collision estimating data.

The DEG will research your inquiry and will work with Mitchell to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to Mitchell. If the DEG Administration requires additional information regarding this operation, you may receive a follow up contact first to clarify any open items. If you would like to track the status of this update, feel free to log on to the DEG database at www.degweb.org. If you have questions regarding this inquiry, please feel free to contact DEG Administration at admin@degweb.org , and reference your inquiry via the tracking number listed below.

Sincerely,

The Database Enhancement Gateway



Inquiry Tracking Number: 1893

Information Provider: Mitchell

Vehicle Description: 2006 Scion tC 2Dr Hatchback JTKDE177460090704

Inquiry Recap:

AreaVehicle
Right door


IssueSummary
Blend time of .9 is not adequate to blend door


Special
All operations that are done for refinish are done for blend even application of color is the same amount of time or more as blending takes more time and technique to complete correctly.


SuggestedAction
Increase blend time.

Thank you Mark Cobb

We have received your inquiry and appreciate your dedication and energy to help improve collision estimating data.

The DEG will research your inquiry and will work with Mitchell to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to Mitchell. If the DEG Administration requires additional information regarding this operation, you may receive a follow up contact first to clarify any open items. If you would like to track the status of this update, feel free to log on to the DEG database at www.degweb.org. If you have questions regarding this inquiry, please feel free to contact DEG Administration at admin@degweb.org , and reference your inquiry via the tracking number listed below.

Sincerely,

The Database Enhancement Gateway



Inquiry Tracking Number: 1894

Information Provider: Mitchell

Vehicle Description: 2006 Scion tC 2Dr Hatchback JTKDE177460090704

Inquiry Recap:

AreaVehicle
Right Rear Quarter panel


IssueSummary
Not enough labor time to refinish right rear quarter panel


SuggestedAction
Increase time

Thank you Mark Cobb

We have received your inquiry and appreciate your dedication and energy to help improve collision estimating data.

The DEG will research your inquiry and will work with Mitchell to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to Mitchell. If the DEG Administration requires additional information regarding this operation, you may receive a follow up contact first to clarify any open items. If you would like to track the status of this update, feel free to log on to the DEG database at www.degweb.org. If you have questions regarding this inquiry, please feel free to contact DEG Administration at admin@degweb.org , and reference your inquiry via the tracking number listed below.

Sincerely,

The Database Enhancement Gateway



Inquiry Tracking Number: 1895

Information Provider: Mitchell

Vehicle Description: 2006 Scion tC 2Dr Hatchback JTKDE177460090704

Inquiry Recap:

AreaVehicle
Left rear quarter panel


IssueSummary
Not enough time to refinish left rear quarter panel


SuggestedAction
Increase time

"... What you contribute to the job at hand, that experience and training has to be measured and valued. But in this industry it isn't."

If this industry doesn't get paid at least sixty-five bucks an hour, then they will never get compensated appropriately. That's the minimum rate that an experienced operator should charge but... due to the commoditization of this industry by the DRP's, this industry will never wake up an get compensated as it should. The DRP's have given EVERYTHING away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

The most important part of labor is the experience, training necessary to do the job, affected by the extent of the work...from simple to complex, and the work environment. The time is merely the measure of the duration.

What you contribute to the job at hand, that experience and training has to be measured and valued. But in this industry it isn't. The value of your contribution to your customer is determined by a preconceived notion that your experience, training and your environment is essentially identical to every other situation in every shop.

And this applies to each and every 'pricing' method external to the job. The use of those 'books, guides, data'......whatever you want to call them, amounts to one thing. You not only are shortchanging yourself, it has fostered a system that fails to deliver to the customer what is expected.

It has removed competition meant to weed out the poor performing from those that deliver on their promise at a competitive price. Instead of the experience, training and environment being the driving force behind price, it is time duration which has nothing to do what you contribute. Or what the customer receives.

That we even discuss those pricing methods and they are still and likely to remain, speaks directly to the extent of the brain washing we have all subjected ourselves. Frankly, I think most repairers are brain dead.

Had to leave, but I want to add this:

Insurers count on repairers being stupid. In fact, they look most derisively at those of a public face who promote the insurer agenda, and not the Mark Cobb's, who I expect, they grudgingly respect.

---

will see things like this 2006 Scion pays the same amount of time to paint the quarter as it does the fender even though the quarter is almost twice the size....and then blend...if you compared the procedures to blend with refinish you will see that blend take more...and I submitted those in the inquiry as well.

How come no one has ever submitted a blend inquiry before now? Think about that time study.....

The truth lies in between the lines...not correct data but product liability and fraud...

Great news Mark!

Your inquiry was submitted to Mitchell by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Mitchell has proposed the resolution listed below which is scheduled to be added to the February 2010 update. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

WE HAVE UPDATED THE DATABASE AS FOLLOWS:



4. UPPER RADIATOR BRACE ........ R/L #1.5

#INCLUDES R&R BUMPER STAY & SIDE BRACKET



IN GENERAL, FOR INNER COMPONENTS WITH NO LABOR NOTES, PLEASE REFER TO LABOR GENERAL INFORMATION, LABOR TIMES: "TIMES FOR SOME OPERATIONS ARE APPLICABLE AFTER NECESSARY BOLTED, ATTACHED OR RELATED PARTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED."

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration

Mark,

Your inquiry was submitted to Mitchell by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Mitchell has proposed the following response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

WE HAVE RE-REVIEWED OEM SERVICE INFORMATION & OUR INITIAL RESEARCH. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT OUR CURRENT PUBLISHED LABOR TIME IS SUFFICIENT TO PERFORM THE P-PAGE INCLUDED OPERATIONS.

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration

Mark,

Your inquiry was submitted to Mitchell by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Mitchell has proposed the following response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

THANK-YOU FOR YOUR INQUIRY.



A REVIEW OF THE P-PAGES SHOWS THAT THE INCLUDED OPERATIONS FOR COMPLETE PANEL REFINISH ARE NOT THE SAME AS THEY ARE FOR BLEND.



THE BLEND FORMULA, WHEN APPLIED APPROPRIATLY, PROVIDES A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF LABOR TO COMPLETE THE STATED INCLUDED OPERATIONS.

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration

Mark,

Your inquiry was submitted to Mitchell by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Mitchell has proposed the following response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

THE PUBLISHED LABOR ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PERFORM THE 9 "INCLUDED OPERATIONS" AS OUTLINED IN THE P-PAGES.

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration

Mark,

Your inquiry was submitted to Mitchell by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Mitchell has proposed the following response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

THANK-YOU FOR YOUR INQUIRY.



AFTER A REVIEWED OEM SERVICE PROCEEDURES AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH THE CURRENT PUBLISHED LABOR TIME APPEARS TO BE SUFFICIENT TO PERFORM THIS OPERATION.



FOR CLARITY, WE HAVE ADDED A NOTE THAT STATES: "W/REAR BODY PANEL REMOVED"

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration

Mark,

Your inquiry was submitted to Mitchell by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, Mitchell has proposed the following response. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

THANK-YOU FOR YOUR INQUIRY.



AFTER A REVIEW OF THIS PROCEDURE AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NOT INCLUDED OPERATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE LABOR NOTE WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THE PUBLISHED TIME IS SUFFICIENT TO PERFORM THE NECESSARY OPERATIONS.

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration

as significant. The wording puts them squarely in the "standards" box rather than a 'guide' when they use such words as "sufficient", which means 'enough', or 'adequate for the purpose'.

This wording means that in every instance where this particular operation, and by implication, any operation where their conclusion is the time and content is "sufficient", their's is the last word. In fact, an insurer under current practice would latch onto this as immutable; that is it.

But at the same time, this wording amplifies the weakness of 1) the entire group of data providers since they are rarely if ever in agreement on time or content, and 2) that when there are admitted errors they later correct.

You recall Mark, several years ago when there was a big debacle on times and the estimating provider offered to make those losses up to the repairers? Given that admission, this one and many more showing the real intent (as well as their concern at that time for repairer losses), and scrutiny by folks that understand price control mechanisms, monopoly power do you reckon someone could take them to task?

If I had a million dollars I would offer it to anyone that could prove to me the systems are "sufficient".:)


Roy Smalley

You make an excellent point about the responsibility the database provider has to re-imburse all shops and vehicle owners for deficiencies that are identified in the information they are selling to be the gospel. Their information has, the majority the time, become the sole determining factor in establishing what insurance companies pay out for losses.
Just imagine for a moment the staggering dollar amount in underpayment due to the inaccuracies in these programs and you are right, the use of the word "sufficient" makes the use of the word "guide" inapplicable. They are establishing themselves as being the entity that is soley responsible for determining repair costs and, by default, repair cost losses.

Thank you Mark Cobb

We have received your inquiry and appreciate your dedication and energy to help improve collision estimating data.

The DEG will research your inquiry and will work with CCC/Motor to identify a resolution to this issue. You will receive a seperate e-mail confirming that the inquiry has been submitted to CCC/Motor. If the DEG Administration requires additional information regarding this operation, you may receive a follow up contact first to clarify any open items. If you would like to track the status of this update, feel free to log on to the DEG database at www.degweb.org. If you have questions regarding this inquiry, please feel free to contact DEG Administration at admin@degweb.org , and reference your inquiry via the tracking number listed below.

Sincerely,

The Database Enhancement Gateway



Inquiry Tracking Number: 1936

Information Provider: CCC/Motor

Vehicle Description: 2001 Honda Odyssey 4Dr Van 2HKRL18681H538575

Inquiry Recap:

IssueSummary
R&I Of left side panel cover over sliding door rail is inadequate


ProcedureSteps
Remove seats, remove side panel lower, remove side panel upper, Remove Jack and Hardware, Remove Tailight, Remove panel, Reinstall Panel, Reinstall Tailight, Reinstall Lower side trim, Reinstall upper side trim, Reinstall Jack and Hardware, Reinstall Seats.............


SuggestedAction
Increase labor to reflect amount necessary to R&I panel

Is that a pretty please?

one panel....shows .3 How can you remove a van sliding door rail cover without taking everything apart inside...... They can say what they want but if it is to R&I the panel it has to have all the operations in there.....you can't give just the operation of unbolting and bolting the panel back on if there are 10 things covering it.....

Mark, I have asked Mitchell to confirm this information but I am confident they are referring to the included/not included items listed in their Guide to Estimating. (Any system footnotes would obviously need to be considered as well. )



Regards,



Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration



302-423-0207

302-450-7214 Fax

admin@degweb.org

www.degweb.org



"Advocates for Accurate Collision Data"



Rear Body Lower Panel R&R

Included Operations

• Remove and install:

Rear bumper

Filler panel, applique/finish panel, stone deflector or lower

valance

Weatherstrip attached to panel

Rear lamp assemblies

• Remove and install or replace

Impact absorbers or mounting arms if necessary to perform

operation

Lock cylinder attached to panel

Latch attached to panel

Lock striker attached to panel

Rear body interior trim

• Remove and replace caulking for standard factory application

• Remove clip type moulding for base model vehicle

���������������������������� IMPORTANT REMINDER: Sectioning of a panel may or

may not be recommended by vehicle manufacturer. This procedure should

only be performed when a qualified and knowledgeable technician has

determined that the operation does not jeopardize the integrity of the vehicle.

Not Included Operations

• Refinish rear body panel*

• Remove and/or apply:

Anti-corrosion rust resistant materials

• Remove and install fuel tank assembly

• Remove and install or replace:

Quarter panel interior trim

Wiring and/or wiring harness

• Recode lock cylinder

• Remove and install adhesive exterior trim; add to clean and

retape

• Replace new adhesive exterior trim; deduct one-half of R&R

time

• Install stripes, decals, transfers or overlays

• Drill holes for installing exterior trim

• Cut holes for installing lamps

���������������������������� IMPORTANT REMINDER: Labor times for inner panels,

rails or reinforcements are with outer panels removed.

Quote:

---

not included items listed in their Guide to Estimating.

---

I've often wondered what the purpose of a "Not Included" list was??

It would seem that everything and anything that is missing from the Included List would automatically be "Not Included", and should be accounted for with additional charges as needed.

Or am I missing something here??

Assuming they were able to develop a respnsible, timely data base containing all the operations, parts and accurate times( which is not possible), you would think with some 15 years after the introduction of personal computers into the body shop mainstream they would have moved beyond the dark ages of computation. But I expect the logic and capacity to calculate on demand each operation and include all the unique facets would be expansive and quite expensive to develop, which again, points directly to the impossibility of the data systems to ever provide a reasonably accurate service to the end production users. (But they sure are spending a lot to "mine and colate" estimates for the insurers.

Alternatively, the repairer then spends more time and misses more (notwithstanding the fact of inaccuracy) trying to make the data systems work than it would if they had a parts book and wrote their own estimate.

For example a simple Quick Books estimate would work if you had a PDF parts book. Import the parts, price each by line, calculate your labor price as you see fit and as required by local regulation....which would be just a few lines, and you would be done. That is what I do. Critical elements I price by a, or a group of operations, but items like refinish is "refinish xyz....$ssss. Even critial elements like structural to say a front corner will be one line...now I may have more lines on my cost sheet, but that is mine; it is proprietary.

But naw, that is too much work and besides, the insurance company won't accept it....oh, yes they will when the customer is the customer.:)

my approval of such but it appears each providers has developed a time per weld theory......and if that is true then in many of the replies have been wrong just based upon that formula alone.

You see many times their weld count is wrong. Most publications by the OEM's do not show hidden welds. So when exploring this info be sure to count your welds and measure the accurately with the info developed in these "databases". These providers do not appear to have a very close relationship with many or any OEM's.

I predict some interesting developments in 2010....................keep a close watch....

By they way anyone else submitting some of these program errors and defects? It only takes a few minutes and the resulting documentation is invaluable. I will take any that you get..................

Cobb, how about these industry news outlets including that you are seeking such information? They can easily post your contact info and those who wish to make submissions, can do so.

Shouldn't they all get behind this effort? I believe some have included news of your efforts, but not all. But doesn't this sound like a good idea? :)

Perhaps we should all contact them and make the request, so they can see the interest this would generate??

Thoughts?

between the OEM's and data providers.

Why would the OEM's be interested in a relationship with the data providers? If the OEM's were, there would be extremely high costs financially and liability-wise. And if there were a meaningful association between the two industries, wouldn't the OEM's then be doing the larger purpose of the data providers by providing build specifications in addition to the parts lists?

It has always been intriguing to me, the interest given mundane repairs like blending, compared to the to the total lack of frame/unibody procedures in the data provider information, which is critical safety information, much more important than how long it takes to remove a cladding. Another would deal with glass and ABS information, which to this day does not support the OEM requirement. The source of that information can only come from OEM build specifications, including weld quantity, location and relative strength you mention. And the OEM's have no incentive to supply build data on a formal, continuing basis.....why else would frame manufacturers measure finished cars to obtain measurements (which by the way is a very poor practice in my opinion). Need I mention the controversy surrounding mechanical coding?

And there is no incentive for data providers to expend the effort to provide accurate data. Their claim that their data is a guide relieves them of that incentive, and the cost if they had an interest would be beyond their capability. And there is no penalty owed to the end user repairer for failure to provide accurate data, exempted by the user contract, not to mention their relationships with insurers that have moved to support 'claims' processing.

It may be understood but worth pointing out to those that are wrestling with issues like the data providers. The repairer, and consequently the consumer, are not the nexus for information; it is in reality of no consequence. I read this somewhere yesterday attributed to Tommy Lee Jones in "No Country for Old Men"......"if this ain't a mess, it will do til one comes along".

Roy Smalley, my opinion

in depth article on how these providers develop their data and who is doing it.................All these years and not one EXPOSE'.........

A well investigated story would expose a lot..............

Do all of you know how many people are involved in developing new car data for Mitchell?

Oh if you guys only knew what I have seen and been told by yes the providers themselves...............


Why isn't this stuff getting into the courts?

industry reporters/writers was that they were "too busy with NACE", but they intended to review your info when time permitted.

Ya mean no one ever contacted you?

How long has NACE been over? And I even made certain they each had your contact info.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact those data-providers advertise heavily in our trade publications, and it might not be healthy for the writers' careers if it was learned there was an expose in the workings?

Guys,

I agree totally with the argument that the IS providers are deficient. My 2 cents worth is there are three catregories of information, the included operations, the non-included operations and the not considered operations.

My problem with the systems is that you are drilling down to the tenth of an hour (6 minutes) but ignoring not considered parts and the associated R&I times, and pretending repair versus replace times are calculatable. Its like taking a pie chart slicing out 40% of it, and then holding eveything else to a very tight standard. Perhaps you can argue it is systematic, but it is not accurate. My take is the estimating systems interject the classic problem of suboptimization to the marketplace. The principle of suboptimization can be derived from the more basic systemic principle stating that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts". Common sense, if you try to optimize (create times for individual operations that are tight) you miss the obvious. For example, if I tighten down a bolt it might only take 5 seconds, but I need to reach to get the bolt, and what if it drops or isn't threaded right, get a tool, etc. It might only take 5 seconds to tighten if that is all I am doing and hunched over it, doing nothing else. And what if it was lubricated versus rusty.

It would be interesting to look at the actual time studies for engineering rigor and validity, but that is probably too much to ask for.

Deficient implies that under some circumstances the subject could be sufficient, and that denies the facts. I am not going to get into the many long winded explanations of why the systems won't and can't work but there is one permanent roadblock to determining time that is timely and accurate, and that is, there is no methodology by which the infinite variables involved in repairs can be measured and statistically validated. Not even close. And that is why there are no 'studies' that amount to a hill of beans.

What the insurance industry or any business purchasing a good or service wants is predictablility of costs. Insurance companies have determined that market forces will not provide the returns they seek, so rather than rely on those market forces to function and provide a price, they elected to control the paramaters by which pricing is determined.

They control two entities that provide a guaranteed pricing. Market distribution through the DRP. Pricing thru the estimating providers. Both play a separate but distinct part in the dance while overlapping and supporting each other. The insurance industry is not going to let this control go except it is pried out by overwhelming force, so they will continue to squeeze what life is left out of the industry until there is nothing left and all repairers are enfolded into the business of insurance.

Roy my opinion


And as for the "industry" publications "investigating" and publishing.....be careful what you wish for. The great real investigative reporters were by the name of Rack and Loftus and they took a lot of principle with them. Look first at what's in it for those left and then decide. I got a call today from one of the big time television "investigative" producers. They are nice enough folks but they are interested in ratings and a story that can be understood easily then forgotten. They will never be able to explain the whole, real truth even if truth is their goal.

I have taken a different tack in dealing with deficiencies, whether they have originated with a particular insurance company or with a data provider.
I think every state in the union is in the throws of a budget crisis because their revenues(tax collection) are down. I have appealed directly to one of my state senators to look into the short pay nightmare we are dealing with and have pointed all how the state is being denied ALL the tax due for repairs because it never shows up on a repair order. Some repairs either aren't being performed, to the disadvantage of the vehicle owner, or they are being performed but shops are being forced to perform them for free or at a ridiculously reduced amount, scenarios denying the state a substantial amount of the tax revenue they so desperately want.
Now let's see if the crooks at the department of insurance can convince the rest of the state government that they must continue to look out for the best interest of the insurance industry at the expense of the state, it's citizens, and us lowly shop owners. I would suggest that every one of you appeal to your state senator, too. All it will take will be for a couple of states to respond and we can get some traction. Other states are sure to see what is happening and follow suit.

Great news Mark!

Your inquiry was submitted to CCC by the DEG and we have been able to assist with a resolution. After researching the inquiry and corresponding with your Information Provider, CCC has proposed the resolution listed below which is scheduled to be added to the March 2010 DVD update. If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to contact the DEG at admin@degweb.org.

Proposed Resolution: MOTOR stated:

'After review of the OEM replacement procedures, the footnote applied to the Rail Cover has been updated to state: 'LABOR: Time is after side panel is removed.''

Once again, we would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this inquiry to our attention and would like you to know that your efforts to help improve the collision estimating data are very much appreciated. We hope you will choose to continue to use www.degweb.org for any inquiries you may have in the future.

Sincerely,
Database Enhancement Gateway

Bud Center Jr.

DEG Administration


But then I would miss all the fun down the road.....lol

What do you think the chances are, Mark, that DEG might offer you a job? It would be great!!! They could continue to get paid to ass things up and you would be there to straighten them out. That way, you could get paid for all your effort instaed of doing it for free.

What I find curious is how the IP will respond to the DEG but not to me...

The DEG seems to be the ends to the means...I have no gripes with them.....but I am not sure they are getting all the info they should nor that they are able to articulate or I guess even have the chance to correct a position to the IP's...no money no power they say....

Like I said this particular response says so much more....This is the outer sliding door cover on a van with automatic doors the sliding side doors....think techs think...this is for the removal of the outer cover that hides the sliding door track on either quarter....think techs think.....

Haha